This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Fri Mar 22 12:52:02 CET 2019
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:21:43PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >I don't think I've said that if it is really a victim. I know my English is bad, but not so terrible! not you, that was Carlos and he has since clarified what he meant. >A direct peer I mean here is the provider of the hijacker. Should you verify and filter anything that doesn't belong to your customer? I do because my customers are small-ish and mostly personally known to me and I can use manual prefix filters. I don't want to presume as to what is possible or scalable for other networks, nor even what they should do. rgds, SL
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]